Ballot Initiatives In Court's Hands

August 24, 1994|By JOHN KENNEDY Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE — The fate of casino gambling and tax cap efforts now rests with the state Supreme Court.

Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday on petition measures that could dramatically change the future of Florida. The court now must decide whether the wide-ranging proposals comply with the state Constitution, making them eligible to go before voters on Nov. 8.

A decision is expected next month, leaders of the petition campaigns said.

"We feel confident the court will side with us and we are ready to move forward into the political arena," said Pat Roberts, chairman of Proposition for Limited Casinos.

Limited Casinos and the Tax Cap Committee worked most of this year to collect 429,428 petition signatures from registered voters - the minimum necessary to get on the ballot.

But it's up to the court to decide whether each proposal's ballot text, title and summary is constitutional. Justices can bar a measure from the ballot if they rule that it misleads voters or addresses more than one subject.

The court has killed three of the five citizen petitions reviewed this year.

For the casino measure, much of the debate focused on its use of the term "limited," when it actually authorizes 47 new casinos.

Justice Leander Shaw suggested such ballot language could confuse voters or at least prompt more questions about current Florida law, which bans casino gambling.

"Is it too much to ask of the average voter to have to go into this kind of inquiry?" Shaw told attorneys for Limited Casinos. "Shouldn't they be able to tell from the title and summary what it does? You can't do that here. There are all kinds of nuances."

"Most voters know or can infer what the present state of affairs is," England said.

But Steve MacNamara, attorney for No Casinos, a campaign formed to fight the proposal, said that use of the term "limited" was enough to make the proposal unconstitutional.

"The title, we feel, is defective on its face," MacNamara said. "We don't have casinos right now so you can't limit them."

Similar arcane legal points dogged Tax Cap attorneys making their pitch to justices on the drive's four proposed constitutional amendments.

One Tax Cap proposal would require voter approval before any new taxes were levied; another would require a two-thirds vote for a constitutionally imposed tax; a third would force governments to compensate property owners if any regulations lower land values; and a fourth would change the citizen petition process to allow ballot proposals to address more than one subject.

Each item was debated separately before justices. Opponent Alan Sundberg, another former Supreme Court justice, argued that all Tax Cap initiatives violate the single-subject rule by affecting state, county and local governments.

"The breadth of this is incomprehensible," Sundberg said.

Tax Cap attorney Joe Little, however, urged the court to approve the measures, saying they are not confusing to voters.

"The issue here is voter approval of taxes. It's a good idea or a bad idea, all or nothing," Little said. "It's one basic idea."